New Article at HPR Today on Propers, Four-Hymn Sandwich, English Plainchant, etc.
  • ProfKwasniewskiProfKwasniewski
    Posts: 242
    Will be of interest to many CMAA folks:

    http://www.hprweb.com/2016/01/propers-of-the-mass-versus-the-four-hymn-sandwich/
    Thanked by 5teachermom24 Kathy rich_enough CHGiffen ZacPB189
  • Blaise
    Posts: 439
    Very good, Professor.
  • FidemInFidebusFidemInFidebus
    Posts: 611
    Excellent thanks for sharing!
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    This needs to get around as much as possible.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    Good article. What gets lost in the discussion of "singing the mass," and "singing at mass, is that it is possible to sing the mass AND hymns. One does not preclude the other. I have thought that the Propers would have had a stronger case for being kept in the reforms, if the wording had any context related to the liturgical actions of the day. Some of them read/sing like random scripture with no relation to what is being celebrated.

    It's too bad Benedict XVI didn't reign some years longer. I don't see any meaningful attempts at liturgical restoration under the current pope. His priorities seem elsewhere.
    Thanked by 4M. Jackson Osborn JulieColl ClergetKubisz CHGiffen
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    The randomness is intentional. As Fr. Guy Nicholls showed at a recent Colloquium, the introits of Ordinary Time were originally not a set of antiphons, but a Psalter. The antiphons followed later, accompanying the Psalms in the order of the Book of Psalms.

    It is an independent course from the Lectionary, but I think that adds to the richness of the Liturgy rather than detracting from it.

    By the way, Peter and all, there's a hot new resource for the Propers!
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,369
    Charles is right, and I've iterated this before.

    It is bordering on cretinesque and certainly is the opposite of cute or clever to refer to a mass in which hymns are sung as a 'four hymn sandwich'. Those who do this are not smart. If only they could see the egg that I see on their faces.

    Of course, I shall defend the singing of a 'five proper sandwich', because the propers are integral to the Roman rite, not ancillary to it (nor, truth be known, dispensed with at the behest of Vatican II), whilst hymns (as are anthems and other music) are extraneous ornaments of it.

    There is nothing, though, which makes the use of well chosen, 'proper', hymns inherently so disreputable that all our childish smart alecs should continue to think that they are definitive oracles when they are really just spot off amusing little clowns.

    If I had to choose between a 'four hymn sandwich' or a 'five proper sandwich' for the Roman rite I should choose the latter. But I would not denigrate the former. Whatever is done at mass should be good music, be it hymnody, anthems, propers, or what - and, whatever we do, it's not a sandwich! Grow up!!!
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,968
    It’s a sandwich because the hymns surround the rite of Mass rather like the construction of a sandwich. Swapping hymns is rather like changing Swiss and American and ham for turkey. But, the music itself (which I think is where the analogy breaks down) is not merely ornamental, and so not to have music is lacking in a sense, and to have hymns substitute the propers when the propers are feasible and appropriate (all 5 propers at 3 Sunday Masses might be too much, unless you have 3 choirs that want to do it and no need to do otherwise).

    It’s also deserving of its derogatory connotation because for far too long the hymns chosen for the most part have been musically and textually average at best in the overwhelming majority of places. If it is less appropriate to use exclusively propers, then choose good texts paired with a beautiful, singable melody.
    Thanked by 3rich_enough dad29 ClergetKubisz
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    It is an independent course from the Lectionary, but I think that adds to the richness of the Liturgy rather than detracting from it.


    I am going to disagree. I think the independence from the lectionary does make them appear irrelevant in the minds of many. It is unfortunate that the two seem to be on a separate track. Propers might be "stronger" and more often used if the two were related.
    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn JulieColl ClergetKubisz
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    I like the tension. The lectionary needn't be the sole basis for preaching, and the more Scripture, the better.
    Thanked by 3bonniebede CHGiffen Daniel Bennett Page
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,369
    ..
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    One of the many reasons I love the EF is because the propers and Scripture readings are deeply and intrinsically connected. I remember so many times while attending Mass in the OF searching for the thematic lesson in the readings, the Collects and the antiphons and coming up empty. It was so frustrating I eventually just gave up trying to find a common theme for the Mass which did in fact make the different elements seem irrelevant as Charles suggested.
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    I don't find them irrelevant, and never find that any scripture lacks relevance. However, I am one individual who doesn't call the shots. To many in the congregation, and also priests, the lack of a connection had damaged the case for Propers. In the OF, they seem like "add-ons" that were thrown in at the last minute. This is a fixable problem if anyone in authority wanted it fixed.
    Thanked by 2ClergetKubisz Salieri
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    You should tell those priests that the order was settled in the first millennium, long before they were born.

    That ought to convince them.
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,033
    Why do the propers have to be related to the lectionary?
    Thanked by 2Kathy eft94530
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,968
    The problem in the new missal is deepened in two ways. First, the propers are not required to be prayed by the celebrant. Second, while they are not necessarily thematically dependent, the propers, orations (especially the collects), and lections form an integral whole. The lectionary and collects were destroyed in the reforms (any merit of the new arrangement notwithstanding, the fact is that there is only a small relationship between the traditional cycles of both the readings and collects and the 1969 cycle), and so the propers were redistributed.

    In the older form, you can really see the connection below the surface, but this also reveals the need for Sung & Solemn Mass (which now that Summorum has been law for some time ought to be the goal as quickly as possible once a Sunday traditional Latin Mass has been established).
    Thanked by 1rich_enough
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,218
    That ought to convince them
    .

    Guess again.
    Thanked by 4CharlesW ClergetKubisz CHGiffen kenstb
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,952
    Background: As someone who helped popularize the term "four-hymn sandwich" on Usenet and other discussion boards in the 1990s, I should explain the original context of this term. It had nothing to do with propers as such, but with the widespread practice of four hymns being the ONLY music at Mass (perhaps with a psalm added, often not back in years of yore). The point being that the Ordinary of the Mass (ideally including presidential chants and orations) was NOT being sung at all, so there was an inversion of what ought to be.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen BruceL
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    In the OF, of course, you do have the advantage of a lectio continua in the Lectionary which provides a better acquaintance with the Scriptures, and I don't want to knock that. However, because the readings, prayers and propers are integrally connected in the usus antiquior and each Mass is, in a sense, a carefully crafted whole I think offers a greater spiritual impact, esp. for those who can't always regularly attend daily Mass and aren't religiously keeping up with the cycle of readings in the OF.
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 756
    Emmm.. the theme of the Mass... is the holy sacrifice of the Mass. i dislike the idea of a theme, as if the Mass was a tabula rasa upon which to draw whatever theme we find pleasing, and I am not just talking about the obvious silliness of clown masses and the like.
    The Mass is an action of Christ (to the father in the Holy Spirit). The liturgy is our human way of drawing close to and entering into the action which HE is already doing - It is Christ who puts the shape on the liturgy, not us.
    Thanked by 3JulieColl CHGiffen eft94530
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Sorry about that; I'm the one who used that phrase, Bonnie. That was a poor choice of words, but in some sense, the Mass in the EF does center around a specific lesson or aspect.

    For example, on the French traditional blog, Liturgia.com, they have titles for the Sundays on the EF Calendar, e.g., Septuagesima Sunday, Quasimodo Sunday, the Sunday of La Peche Miraculeuse, the Sunday of Les Dix Lépreux, Jubilate Deo Sunday, the Sunday of Providence, Good Samaritan Sunday, and Good Shepherd Sunday, as well as Candlemas, and Missa Aurea, the Golden Mass, which was on Ember Wednesday in Advent, to name a few. Many times the title is taken from the Gospel or from the incipit of the Introit.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    I think the independence from the lectionary does make them appear irrelevant in the minds of many.


    To many in the congregation, and also priests, the lack of a connection had damaged the case for Propers. In the OF, they seem like "add-ons" that were thrown in at the last minute.


    The lectionary and collects were destroyed in the reforms (any merit of the new arrangement notwithstanding, the fact is that there is only a small relationship between the traditional cycles of both the readings and collects and the 1969 cycle), and so the propers were redistributed.


    As much as all this makes sense, I would like to know where people are getting this information. I would very much like it to be true that many priests and lay people resist the singing of the Proper of the Mass due to a lack of connection with the lectionary, or that they seem like "add-ons" as that would be a great step in helping to figure out how to convince people that the Proper of the Mass has value. However, being able to cite credible sources would be incredibly helpful.

    This is a fixable problem if anyone in authority wanted it fixed.


    I agree with this wholeheartedly.

    The problem in the new missal is deepened in two ways. First, the propers are not required to be prayed by the celebrant. Second, while they are not necessarily thematically dependent, the propers, orations (especially the collects), and lections form an integral whole.


    I think that there are many priests (and some lay people) that believe that if it's not in the missal, it doesn't happen (or belong) at Mass. This of course causes all sorts of issues for the argument that Propers are supposed to be sung still, even when supported by documentation from pre and post Vatican II sources. Furthermore, the current Missal does not contain the entire text of the Mass as it did before, and I think that is causing major problems liturgically.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937

    As much as all this makes sense, I would like to know where people are getting this information


    Matthew 13:9 - He who has ears, let him hear.

    Then there is the part about eyes to see. LOL. I believe many of us have seen and heard, or in the case of Propers, not heard. That is where we are getting this information. I have even heard some say, ordained and not, when discussing a Proper, "that has no relation to anything."

  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,968
    As far as the lectionary goes, none of the years ABC coincide exactly to the one year lectionary; occasionally a year does like on this past Sunday, but that is dumb luck in a way. As for the collects, Dr. Lauren Pristas wrote a monograph on the collects of the two missals.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    Pristas' research is brilliant
    Thanked by 1Daniel Bennett Page
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,218
    The lectionary and collects were destroyed in the reforms (any merit of the new arrangement notwithstanding, the fact is that there is only a small relationship between the traditional cycles of both the readings and collects and the 1969 cycle), and so the propers were redistributed


    Aside from Pristas (mentioned above) you could read Dobszay's work, which also brings up the revolution in the Psalm-sequencing in the prayers of the Hours, which began around the time of Pius X (IIRC).
    Thanked by 1Daniel Bennett Page
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,968
    Brilliant and free from polemics. It’s very matter of fact.
    Thanked by 3Daniel Bennett Page CHGiffen Kathy
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    I don't find them irrelevant, and never find that any scripture lacks relevance. However, I am one individual who doesn't call the shots. To many in the congregation, and also priests, the lack of a connection had damaged the case for Propers. In the OF, they seem like "add-ons" that were thrown in at the last minute. This is a fixable problem if anyone in authority wanted it fixed


    Well, part of the problem is that the propers cycle used in the novus ordo is out of date. It was finalized, more or less, between 700-900, and was intended for a different calendar and rite. The compilers of the Novus Ordo Graduale had the impossible task of grafting an ancient heritage onto a modern innovation. I sincerely believe that the Missal and the Lectionary were put together without ANY reference to the Gregorian propers cycle, and that the OCM was put together as a complete afterthought.

    How else can you account for the destruction of the completely unique use of Psalm 90(91) for the Entire Proper of the First Sunday of Lent, by replacing the Gradual Psalm (in two-out-of-three years), the Tract/Gospel Verse, and Communion Antiphon with something completely different--it turns the cycle for this day into just any other.

    I also dislike the change from Reminiscere to Tibi dixit for Lent 2. (I still refer to the Sundays of Lent as Invocabit; Reminiscere, Oculi, Laetare, and Judica me.)

    There are other issues I have with the Novus Ordo Propers.

    In my opinion, I find the disconnect between the propers during ordinary time diminishes when ALL the propers for a given day are sung from the Gradual, not just the Introit and Communion. An Offertory or Introit that seems out of place when compared to the Lectionary Psalms often turns out to fit really well when compared to the Gradual and Alleluia from the GR.
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    There's nothing to prevent anyone from arranging a thematic set of propers. A Graduale Thema. Hooray for option 4 (or probably option 3 in this case)!
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,968
    Is the ABC cycle for the propers mandatory? I say ignore it and use the same ones every year...
  • JahazaJahaza
    Posts: 468
    What gets lost in the discussion of "singing the mass," and "singing at mass, is that it is possible to sing the mass AND hymns. One does not preclude the other.

    I'm not entirely convinced.

    The Anglo-American hymn singing tradition is a wonderful thing, but I think there is a danger of unbalancing the Mass when hymns are inserted into it. The crescendo from Offertory to Preface to Sanctus to Canon risks being muddled if the offertory hymn is too strong (the loud participated congregational singing that is the ideal for hymns).

    I find a strophic hymn to be a kind of culmination as it is in the EF Divine Office. So it's tough to fit it in places where you don't want a culmination. This reflects my experience with the rhythms of the Byzantine vespers as well and the force of its verses on "Lord I call" and verses at the Aposticha. (I find this very frustrating about the Novus Ordo office.)

    The recessional is probably the "safest" place for hymns.

    Don't mistake me, I love hymns! Our local Latin Mass community choir loves to find interesting hymns to sing at Benediction (which we have every Sunday after vespers.
    Thanked by 2MBW rich_enough
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Is the ABC cycle for the propers mandatory? I say ignore it and use the same ones every year...


    Very rarely are there ABC options in the Graduale, and when there are I generally use the one that corresponds most to the traditional cycle, except when the GR has those wonderful Eucharistic antiphons in year B (I think) to go with the several weeks of St. John's Bread of Life Gospel Series. The issue with the ABC thing is the Lectionary, and you can't change that. (Well, you could, but It would be illicit.) There are times when, for example, the Offertory fits extremely well with the First Reading for one of the years, but then seems completely bizarre in the others.
  • JaredOstermann
    Posts: 483
    At least with the Communion Propers, more often than not the Graduale text is an excerpt straight from the Gospel of the day. However, I don't really buy the argument that

    a - the propers need to all be based on scripture
    b - the reason people don't want them is because they aren't all based on the readings of the day

    People seem to like hymns as the norm, yet most of the time the hymns (or 2 or 3 out of the 4 at least) have no real relation to the readings.

    The fact is, that a great deal of the time there aren't musical settings available (whether one picks propers or hymns or a freely chosen "offertory anthem") that closely match the readings of the day. Sometimes there is one hymn or piece that really seems to fit - but then what about the other 3?
    I like to use propers because they are handed on to us by the Church. Sometimes, they match the readings. That is very interesting. Sometimes they do not. That is also very interesting. What I do not see is a compelling argument that there is some "theme" to each given day. I also have never seen where the Church says that the readings of the day are the starting point for all liturgical music.
    Thanked by 4ClergetKubisz BruceL CHGiffen ryand
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    I tell folks that we have a missing slice of bread since we only have a three-hymn sandwich. I dropped the offertory hymn years ago and no one objected. The choir or cantor sings at that time anyway, or I play when no one sings.

    At my place, everyone enjoys stately and powerful entrance and recessional hymns. The communion hymn is sung after the Proper. It tends to be a choir or cantor solo since the congregation doesn't sing them. When asked, they tell us they are busy with communion and don't want to fool with a hymnal or a hymn. Works for me.

    I know the missal Propers were meant to be spoken, but they can be sung and I frequently use them. The Rice settings are easily sung and work well.

    Theme of the day: I'm tired, I've been up since 4:30 a.m., leave me alone, do that one more time and I will hurt you. Typical Sunday
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    Hymns, if they don't match the readings, are still often matched to the liturgical action, the day, or the season, as the GIRM (US) suggests they should. I don't think themes are crucial but they are preferable to none. Lack of themes isn't the reason why the propers aren't used but themes would strengthen the case for why they should be.
  • JaredOstermann
    Posts: 483
    Charles,

    I use the Missal antiphons a lot too, for the congregational communion antiphons I've composed. I do this because they are often shorter and more conducive to setting as a short congregational refrain. What is interesting there is that the newly-created Missal antiphons very often are not related to the Gospel (directly), while the ABC Graduale proper for communion is a direct quotation from the Gospel. Is there a method to any of the madness? I really can't say...
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    I never found the method to any of that, either. The missal antiphons are practical and easily handled by singers and the choir.
  • JaredOstermann
    Posts: 483
    John,

    I think that begs the question: How does Ordinary Time as a season give us any guidance as to what hymn to pick? I don't understand how to pick a hymn to match the season of Ordinary Time. Nor do I understand how to pick a hymn to match the liturgical action of Offertory or Entrance, simply as a liturgical action. And most of the time I don't understand how to pick a hymn to match the particular day. It is the 3rd Sunday of Ordinary time. Does the 3rd Sunday of OT suggest a particular matching hymn (much less 4), in and of itself? No, and that's why we turn to other things to "match" - for example the gospel, or a hymn that approximates the offertory proper, or some extra-liturgical theme (e.g. Roe v. Wade this weekend). As far as liturgical action, this only really seems helpful at communion (i.e. we pick a communion-themed hymn. EXCEPT that only a tiny minority of proper communion antiphons are "about" communion, so I'm not sure how helpful the liturgical action is as a criteria even there). So, while I understand that the GIRM asks us to match selected music to the liturgical action, day, or season, in practice all of these criteria are very often useless as a guide to music. Now, certain special seasons (Easter, Christmas) and feast days do bring a plethora of solid hymn and repertoire options, and are easy to relate. The irony there is that there are so many good hymns and pieces (say, for Easter or Pentecost) that it is easy to leave the Proper out entirely when matching music to the day.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,968
    This mess isn’t new. When Holy Family was created for the universal church, the Sunday Mass was moved to the following ferial days and new propers were assigned. The Mass In Excelsum Thronum is appropriate, as it happens, for the feast, but the Communion proper, the text of which was the Virgin and Our Lord asking each other questions, was replaced by Jesus going down to Nazareth, also from the same Gospel pericope (originally on that Sunday and thus repeated on the ferial days).

    The musical quality of new propers is a related question...
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,952
    Jared

    The cursus of Gospel readings in Ordinary Time does provide a framework if you study how they fit into their respective Gospels, given how the latter are structured.
  • JaredOstermann
    Posts: 483
    Liam,

    True - but this is moving beyond "day, season, liturgical action" to "matching pieces to themes/ideas uncovered by biblical study and scholarship". That's my point: the day and season, in itself, provides little or no guidance (beyond general progressive solemnity, which would indicate somewhat less elaborate music in Ordinary Time than in the Easter or Christmas season, but somewhat more elaborate music than we might have in Lent). For a large swathe of the year, "day, season, liturgical action" is not much help at all in choosing music.

    It sounds very nice and ideal to say "the music should be suited to the liturgical action," but in reality it is not clear what this means.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    I try to relate hymns to the scripture readings, but that is not always possible. Some of the suggestions for a particular Sunday in the GIA hymnal index are often hymns no one knows, or wants to know. I was once told that when nothing seems to fit, choose a hymn of praise. You can't go wrong praising God.
  • MBWMBW
    Posts: 175
    Doesn't this discussion illustrate the point that we are too focused and concerned about the literal meaning of words rather than the entire human experience of the Mass? Aren't the sounds of the introit, mixed with the sights and smells of the procession just as important or more important than the mere meaning of the words being sung.

    I don't mean to say that the words are not important - they are, and should certainly be in keeping with the occasion. This is why the psalms are always a good bet.

    Another way to put it is: how much would it improve the liturgical experience if we were to write new texts every week which would relate directly to the readings, to the liturgical moment and to current events. Like this:
    Antiphon: As we watch the holy priest enter, we hope no terrorist attacks are planned
    for this feast of the Baptism of the Lord
    Verse: Our gospel speaks of one of three miracles, and we have three babies being
    baptized during Mass today.
    etc: ad horrible infinitum

    Even allowing for my snarky, poetryless, writing, I believe it is clear that this is a dead end. It is not the words in their narrow meanings, it is the sonority of appropriate words being sung well at the right moment to create a full, human, sacred experience for as many people as we can.

    Graduale chants, simpler settings of both sets of propers, and strophic hymns all have their strengths and drawbacks for practical liturgical use. I am sure, however, that the way they are performed musically is at least as important (actually, I think, more important) than the words they contain.
    Thanked by 4rich_enough Jahaza CHGiffen JulieColl
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    MatthewRoth: Is the ABC cycle for the propers mandatory? I say ignore it and use the same ones every year...

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
    22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
    2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
    3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen M. Jackson Osborn CharlesW
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,968
    That’s not helpful. As we saw today, doing whatever you want (so long as it’s innovative) eventually gets Roman approval. So the principle of no one making change on one's own authority is weakened already, and positivist arguments are already poor as it is.

    The question pertained to the authority of the Graduale Romanum as well as the Ordo Cantus Missae. I know the GR is weighted below the OCM in some ways, but the missal refers to the GR, and as it happens the missal is ignored sometimes (like singing “Tecum” in the Exsultet at the Easter Vigil following the OCM but not the missal, which has been the case at St. Peter’s). I didn’t know where the occasional changes for years ABC originated, because you could potentially make a case for not changing them.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    MatthewRoth: mandatory [...] ignore

    Things are licit or they are not.
    Ignorance does not excuse.
    Choosing bad behavior to imitate other bad behavior does not excuse.
    That is why I posted the quote.

    MatthewRoth: doing whatever you want

    Do whatever you want at your own risk.
    Enticing others to participate in bad behavior adds to trouble.

    However, if you know what are ALL the licit choices,
    and one of them permits you to do what you seek,
    there is no problem even though it might be a lesser ideal.

    For the OF in the USA the GIRM says the IN-OF-CO Propers have four options.
    On those days that have assigned a Proper for Year B or Year C,
    you can licitly choose a different option and use Year A.

    Make the conscious decision to choose another licit option,
    rather than choose to act contrary to a licit option.

    The intention affects the goodness or badness.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,218
    Aren't the sounds of the introit, mixed with the sights and smells of the procession just as important or more important than the mere meaning of the words being sung.


    A remarkable question.

    NOTHING is more important than the word. B-16 underlined that in his address to the int'l church music ass'n (Vienna, 1985 IIRC.) The music illustrates the word, or "enfleshes" it. Text is primary, period.
    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn a_f_hawkins CHGiffen
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,968
    Eft94530, you assume that all liturgical changes are created equally. It isn’t innovating to use only one set of Propers. It is also different when reaching into the tradition versus making it up.
    Thanked by 1dad29
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    SC said that the reason music is the highest liturgical art is because it is joined to the sacred words.

    Such as oo-oo-oo and ch-ch-ch....
    Thanked by 2eft94530 Aristotle Esguerra
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    It would be odd if you were permitted to use any hymn but not any proper, assuming it's not inappropriate for the occasion. I don't see a strong reason to ignore the cycles but I would argue that it's licit.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,968
    The strongest reason is that having only one set being used repeatedly helps the formation of a pious memory. The problem is that while the orations stay the same, in the new form the lessons rotate... It is also less work over time for a stable choir if they have sung the same Masses, more or less, for a few consecutive years.
Add a Comment